Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners -defendants under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dt. 26.04.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 8, Jaipur Metropolitan City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court') in Civil Appeal No. 41/2009, whereby the Appellate Court has dismissed the application of the petitioners filed under Order XIII Rule 10 read with Order XLI Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure. In the instant case, it appears that the respondent -plaintiff had filed the suit seeking eviction against the petitioners -defendants in respect of the suit shop, which suit was decreed by the trial Court. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the said decree, has filed the appeal before the Appellate Court, which is pending, and during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioners had filed the application under Order XIII Rule 10 CPC requesting the Court to summon the documents from the office of Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Circle -1, Jaipur, pertaining to the firm Emrald International, Jaipur, allegedly belonging to the respondent -plaintiff. The said application has been rejected by the Appellate Court, against which the present petition has been filed.
(2.) IT has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. A.K. Pareek for the petitioners that the documents sought to be called for from the office of Assistant Commercial Tax Officer are very relevant to decide the appeal and such application was allowed by the trial Court pending the suit, however, the same was not being persuaded. The Court does not find any substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, for the simple reason, that the provisions contained in Order XIII Rule 10 CPC would apply, where the Court of its own motion, and may in its discretion upon the application of either of the parties to the suit, send for, either from its own records or from any other Court, the record of any other suit or proceeding, and inspect the same. In the instant case, the petitioners -defendants have filed the application requesting the Court to summon the documents from the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, which could neither be said to be the Court nor such documents could be said to be record of the suit or proceeding of the Court. Hence, the very application of the petitioners under Order XIII Rule 10 CPC was not maintainable in the eye of law. Even otherwise, it appears that the application was filed by the petitioners with a view to delay the proceedings, as observed by the Appellate Court in the impugned order. Under the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court, which is even otherwise just and proper. In that view of the matter, the petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.;